Today, we are splintering into at least several Americas. Edwards was talking about the rich and poor Americas. But how about the different Americas who watch different cable news channels?

Consider what people are still hearing on Fox about Susan Rice. Last weekend, Rice appeared on Meet the Press. On Tuesday night, Greta van Susteren started her program like this:

VAN SUSTEREN (2/24/14): Senator Lindsey Graham blasting the National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Twitter. Rice still sticking by the talking points she delivered on five different Sunday morning shows in the days right after the Benghazi attack when four Americans were murdered in that attack. But the Obama administration insisted it was all about a video.

Senator Lindsey Graham tweeting, “Susan Rice may be comfortable about the role she played in Benghazi debacle but no one else outside of President Obama's political inner circle is.”

Senator Graham joins us. Nice to see you, sir.

GRAHAM: What a very smart thing to have said, if I say so myself.

Just for the record, Van Susteren’s comments weren’t very smart. On Meet the Press, Rice noted that her presentation in September 2012 involved “information [that] turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct.” And of course, the Obama administration had never “insisted it was all about a video.”

Seventeen months later, that’s what people are still being told if they watch Greta on Fox. As the discussion continued, things didn’t get any better:

VAN SUSTEREN (continuing directly): What—what is going on with this? I mean, at least, I mean—

GRAHAM: Well, they're getting away with it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this was the most regrettable incident of the time she was there. Susan Rice acts like it’s still fine.

Does Susan Rice “act like it’s still fine?” It all depends on the meaning of what “it” is! In the comment Van Susteren cited, Clinton was talking about the killing attack in Benghazi itself.

On Meet the Press, Rice was asked about something else. She was asked if she had “any regrets” about what she said that day, not about the attacks.

This was already pretty poisonous. Here’s what Graham said:

GRAHAM (continuing directly): Well, from her point of view, her—her job was to turn the terrorist attack into a protest because there seven weeks from an election. All of the intelligence coming out of Libya, from the station chief, the CIA station chief said this was not—not a protest. Fox has done a marvelous job of detailing how people reported a terrorist attack, named who was involved, and this protest story was politically hatched out of the White House and why was Susan Rice picked? She was the U.N. Ambassador. She has absolutely no control over the conflict in Libya, she doesn't. You know, that's not her portfolio. I think they picked her and not Hillary because she would say anything.

Coming from a senator discussing a high-ranking official, that last highlighted statement is remarkably ugly stuff. Meanwhile, the first statement we’ve highlighted is simply false. Has Graham seen the official intelligence report from which Rice was working that day?

(Answer: Obviously, yes, he has. So of course has Van Susteren.)

Today, we have two, three, many Americas. In large part, it’s because of the bullshit being broadcast on Fox—bullshit which is now being matched to some extent by the bullshit on MSNBC or, God help us, over at Salon.

If you get your bullroar from Fox, this is what you heard about Rice as the pair continued:

VAN SUSTEREN (continuing directly): I think it's disturbing that, these years out, that she is still sticking to it.

GRAHAM: Very disturbing.

VAN SUSTEREN: Instead of, instead of saying, “You know, I made a mistake” or whatever, something, but still sticking to it and acting like we are so stupid that we still believe it, number one. And number two is that I—I don't, I'm always suspicious of someone who will never admit a mistake when backed into the corner with the facts.

GRAHAM: Well, number one, if she really believes what she said is still accurate, God help us all.

VAN SUSTEREN: That's scary.

GRAHAM: She said that the consulate was substantially, strongly, and significantly secured. Who in the world—that's with never mind the talking points, she was making things up. Al Qaeda has been diminished, they are on the run. There is no evidence of a terrorist attack. But what we think is, a protest was caused by a hateful video we had nothing to do with.

In effect, Rice did say, “I made a mistake.” As quoted above, she acknowledged on Meet the Press that part of her statement turned out to be inaccurate.

Meanwhile, for those who know how to read, Rice didn’t say that the killing attack was caused by the hateful video. And she didn’t say there was no evidence of a terrorist attack. Indeed, she told Bob Schieffer the killing attack may have been “al Qaeda itself.”

“I think they picked her and not Hillary because she would say anything?” That was an amazingly ugly thing for Graham to say about Rice. But we are splitting into a panoply Americas as people clown on our own cable station while people like this engage in this fraud on Fox.

Meanwhile, our big newspapers hide in the weeds. This should be on page one of the New York Times. But the mutts who work at that pseudo-newspaper are devoted to avoiding such topics.

One last point, and this is key:

If Timesmen tried to sort this out, there’s no chance they would know how. Those skills simply don’t exist among our pseudo-elite.

Full and complete disclosures: We’ve chatted with Greta on several occasions, including in Manchester that very same year, where she was nice enough to host a Hotline comedy event.

We sat backstage with our favorite pal, Will Durst. Greta said the people at Fox had been very nice, and that no one had ever told her to say X, Y or Z.

The first time we ever saw Greta was at the White House, at a cattle-call Christmas party in 1999 or 2000. Along with her husband, she was a major Democrat then, or at least that’s what everyone thought.

At some point, Fox News came calling. Or something!

The things some people will do to win! Republican senators may act this way. So may major cable news stars on various cable news channels.

Yeah, gyrfalcon! Because if Somerby doesn't criticize Fox's reporting, then who will?

I mean, other than Media Matters, half the Daily Kos community, and pretty much every liberal blog on the internet (except for those who don't even bother with Fox anymore, since their entire readership already knows Fox is comprised of hacks).

Somerby is the only one to my knowledge even attempting an ongoing, credible critique of corporate liberal media. Millionaires by-and-large and shameless self-promoters worthy of at least some scrutiny? It's just not well suited for the root-root-root! for the home team crowd.

Right, there have been no politicians railing about the "liberal press," no books written, no pundits writing, no hay to be made there for the past half-century. Yep the "liberal media" has skated until Bob came along.

"...she was a major Democrat then, or at least that’s what everyone thought."

Arianna Huffington used to be conservative. Dennis Miller was once liberal. If the point that money changes people's politics or is it that such politics are set aside in favor of the agenda promoted by one's employer -- despite Van Susteran's comment that she received no Fox marching orders?

When Fox overlooks the accuracy of Rice's statements do they do it for different reasons than when Matthews overlooks them? Does the left pick up these mistaken views because the right is so effective at promulgating them that they confuse everyone, or is the same message coming down to both the left and right, perhaps as part of an agenda distinct from both perspectives? Is that agenda coming from plutocrats (who has more in common with each other than with members of any party) or from government interests such as an out-of-control and unmonitored intelligence community?

If big media cannot be trusted, where can we get reliable information? Certainly not from the internet, given Snowden's latest release of documents.

Dennis Miller was never a liberal or leftish, he was a tit for tat comic. That made liberals, who for years lived a sort of battered child life, think he was somehow on their side. Here in America, we live our lives with money as a primary value. That is what The Daily Howler seems to be struggling with in the case of Matthews, Van Susteren, etc.

Scandal mongering should not get a pass just because the story turns out to be true. The elevating of scandal above policy gives a great big push toward personality politics. It validates the "who would you like to have a beer with" way of deciding between candidates.

The nation would be so much better off with officials that enacted policies that generated full employment and also got away with scandels involing graft, abuse of power, deviant sexual practices, or even atheism, than with squeeky-clean officials whose policies damage the social fabric.

If a scandal removes a politician like Christie from office, or consideration for higher office, instead of the electorate rejecting his policies, there is a very good chance that the replacement will have similar policies. It seems only to serve the type of person that says "Ooooo, I hate that guy!" (giving them clever, belittling nicknames counts, too)

Many people are looking to live a green but really have no idea how to go about it. There are a wide variety of alternative energy sources to protect the environment.http://www.residenttechnologies.com |